Reference: From here they answer the Gemara in Gitin (54b). R. Yosi said that the Kohen Gadol on Yom Kipur is Yochi'ach. When he says that he made Pigul (when he was alone in the Heichal) he is believed;

Implied question: In Menachos (14a), R. Yosi holds like R. Shimon, that Pigul applies only to what is done on the outer Mizbe'ach!

Answer #1: According to what it says here, that [R. Shimon] agrees that it is Pasul, this is fine. "Pigul" is not precise. (Also elsewhere, we find that Pigul is not precise - PF.)

Answer #2: [R. Yosi said Pigul, but] he refers to Lo Lishmah.

Rebuttal: This is unreasonable.

Question: We cannot learn from she'Lo Lishman, for it applies to [all] four Avodos. Chutz li'Zmano applies only to Zerikah! (Ayeles ha'Shachar - Chutz li'Zmano does not apply within one Avodah itself, except for Zerikah with intent to finish Zerikah Chutz li'Zmano.) We asked like this above (4a).

Answer: Had he asked so, we would make a Kal v'Chomer from Shinuy Ba'alim, which is like Pigul, and applies only to Zerikah.

Question: We cannot learn from Shinuy Ba'alim, for it disqualifies in Shechitah [alone] regarding Pesach, or in Zerikah alone!

Answer: She'Lo Lishman (Shinuy Kodesh) Yochi'ach, and we learn from the Tzad ha'Shavah of Shinuy Kodesh and Shinuy Ba'alim.

Explanation: R. Yehudah's reason is below (59a. He explains the verse simply.)

Question: According to R. Yehudah, since the Azarah is Mekadesh, how do we find that if Pesulim descended, they do not ascend? (It is as if they are still on the Mizbe'ach!)

Answer #1: We find it if they descended to a chamber (around the Azarah) or in the Ulam.

Answer #2: They descended onto a board. It is no better than the airspace [above the Azarah], for it says below (26a) that if one suspended [the Korban in the airspace of the Azarah] and slaughtered, it is Pasul.

Answer #3: He slaughtered on the floor [of the Azarah], and afterwards put [the Korban] on a board. Now, they descended.

Question (against Answer #3): Below (120a), we ask if [Kodshei Kodoshim were slaughtered in the south, and they descended, do we bring them up [offer them? Tzon Kodoshim - this is worse than other Pesulim. All the more so, since they already descended onto a board, we do not bring them up!]

Answer #4: Below (60a), R. Yehudah agrees about blood, that it requires a Mizbe'ach, and the blood does not have the law of Alah (it ascended) while on the floor.

Answer #5: It says "if they ascended", i.e. according to letter of the law, before David came and was Mekadesh the floor, and before Shlomo built the Mikdash. (Keren Orah says that "David" is not precise. Only Shlomo was Mekadesh.)

Explanation #1 (Rashi): This is one who drank wine.

Rebuttal (and Explanation #2): It connotes unlike this in Bechoros (45b)! Rather, Shikor is through other intoxicants, and this is like R. Yehudah, who says that he disqualifies Avodah.

Defense (of Explanation #1): However, we can say that surely, Shikor that was taught there is not one who drank wine, like it asks there "it should have been taught with Mumim that disqualify Avodah!";

However, Shikor here, the simple meaning connotes that he drank wine. There [it refers to one who drank other intoxicants] like it means there, and here [it refers to one who drank wine] like it means here, and [here] all agree that he disqualifies Avodah, like it asks there simply "he disqualifies Avodah!"

Explanation #1 (Rashi): This shows that it does not depend on whether or not one can be Mevatel it. Do you say that according to Rabanan it is Pasul?!

Question: What was the question? According to Rabanan, surely it does not depend on this!

They disqualify [due to intent in] Holachah because from Kabalah and onwards is a Mitzvah of (i.e. requires) Kehunah!

Explanation #2: Rather, he asks that R. Shimon is Machshir because one can be Mevatel it. It does not depend on this, since a Zar is Kosher for Shechitah, even though one cannot be Mevatel it!

Below, when it asks from Holachah of limbs, it asks according to R. Shimon.

Support: [The Gemara] brings R. Elazar's teaching that Holachah of a Zar is Pasul even according to R. Shimon.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): [Shechitah is not an Avodah] because all Pesulim are Kosher for it.

Rebuttal: This cannot be, for we bring [that Shechitah is not an Avodah] to explain why a Zar is Kosher, here and in Menachos (6b)!

Defense: We can say that since we do not require a Kohen for Shechitah in any place, it is not an Avodah. This is why [the Gemara] asks from [Shechitas] Parah [Adumah].

Explanation #2 (Ri of Orlins): It is not an Avodah because it is the same in Chulin and in Kodshim. If so, the Torah did not command Shechitah due to Avodah.

Explanation #3: I say that it is not an Avodah, because below (26a) we are Machshir one who stands in the south and stretches his hand to the north and slaughters Kodshei Kodoshim. Regarding Kabalah it is Pasul [in such a case];

We expound "Oso (the Korban is) b'Tzafon", but the Shochet need not be in the north, but the Mekabel must be in the north;

Regarding Shelamim we are Machshir one who stands outside [the Mikdash] and stretches his hand inside and slaughters. If he received [like this], the Kabalah is Pasul;

We expound (32b) "Ben ha'Bakar Lifnei Hash-m", but the Shochet need not be Lifnei Hash-m;

However, if he received, the Kabalah is Pasul, because it says "La'amod Lifnei Hash-m Lesharso." This shows that all service must be Lifnei Hash-m;

Inference: Since the Torah is Machshir one who stands outside and stretches his hand and slaughters, this implies that Shechitah is not an Avodah.

Support: Also, it says below (26a) that that if one was suspended [in the airspace of the Azarah] and slaughtered, it is Kosher, for the Torah said that Shechitah (i.e. the Korban) must be "Al Yerech" (by the Mizbe'ach), but the Shochet need not be Al Yerech.

Inference: Shechitah is not an Avodah, for if it were an Avodah, the Torah would not be Machshir it in such a case, for we say (26a) that if one was suspended [in the air] and did Kabalah, it is Pasul, for this is not the way to serve.

Support (for Explanation #1): Since it asks here and below (68b) and in Menachos (6b) from Parah, that Rav said that if a Zar did Shechitah of Parah, it is Pasul, this connotes a little like Rashi explained.

Retraction of Support: However, also according to what I explained, we can resolve this.

Question (against Explanation #3): If so, Shimon ha'Temani, who requires below (32b) that the Shochet's hand is further in [the Azarah] than the [Korban] slaughtered, Shechitah is an Avodah!

Reference: I explained this in Chulin (11a DH Chatas. It is Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis, but because the Torah called it Chatas, in some ways it is like Kodshei Mizbe'ach.)

Question (R. Eliyahu of Avrvika ha'Kadosh): In Yoma (27a), we say that since [the Torah] needed to write "Kohen" regarding taking limbs to the ramp...

This is not needed for the law itself, rather, to reveal that taking wood to the Mizbe'ach does not require a Kohen;

Since we need an exclusion for taking wood, if so arranging two logs requires Kehunah;

If so, R. Shimon, who requires there (26b) two Kohanim for the two logs, what is his source? The "Kohen" written regarding taking limbs to the ramp is needed for the law itself, for one can [slaughter next to the Mizbe'ach and] be Mevatel this!

Answer: R. Shimon holds like he taught elsewhere. He said there (45a) that the Torah did not need to write "Kohen" regarding lighting the small chips [of the Ma'arachah], for would it cross your mind that a Zar approaches the Mizbe'ach?! Rabanan [need "Kohen"], for [if not], it is possible [for a Zar to light it from afar] via a bellows.

If so, you are forced to say that R. Shimon holds that the two logs require Kehunah without a verse, because "would it cross your mind...?!" Just like he does not hold [that it is possible] via a bellows, he does not hold that it is possible to throw [the two logs].

However, Rabanan hold [that it is possible] through throwing, just like they hold that [it is possible] via a bellows.

The "Kohen" written regarding taking limbs [to the ramp] is needed for the law itself, for [Chachamim] do not hold [that Holachah is not a proper Avodah] because one can be Mevatel it. Rather, it reveals about the two logs, that they require Kehunah.

Implied question: In Menachos (20a), it says that [the Mishnah is Machshir when] a Kohen did not salt [a Minchah], rather, a Zar [did]. It asks "would it cross your mind that a Zar approaches [the Mizbe'ach to salt it]?!" (Is this only like R. Shimon?)

Answer: It asks even according to Rabanan, who hold [that it is possible from afar] through a bellows or throwing. One cannot salt well through throwing.

Explanation (Rashi): [We ask whether or not it is called Holachah] to disqualify through intent, and also through a Zar.

Possibility #1: If it is called Holachah, intent Lo Lishmah or of Pigul disqualifies.

Possibility #2: And if it is not called Holachah, it is not called Avodah, and one must return the bucket and do Holachah by foot;

Also, if a Zar did it, or one who was sitting, this is not a problem, and he can fix it through a Kohen extending his hand. (It must be returned to its place through a Kohen, but this can be by hand. Tosfos did not need to teach that afterwards, Holachah to the Mizbe'ach must be through a Kohen, by foot - Taharos ha'Kodesh).

Or [according to Possibility #1], if a Zar took it through extending his hand, it is Pasul, and he cannot fix it through a Kohen returning it, and a Kohen will take it.

Explanation (cont.): [The Gemara] learns from "and similarly, [Holachah while] sitting is Pasul." This implies that standing like sitting, that he does not move from his place, is Kosher. This shows that it is Holachah, and he did the Avodah properly;

Also, this is why when he did it sitting it is Pasul, for it is written "La'amod Leshares." (Because it is considered Holachah, and it was Pasul, it cannot be fixed.)

Observation: However, from "sitting is Pasul" one could not prove that Holachah not by foot is Avodah, for perhaps it is not Avodah;

Sitting is Pasul, i.e. when he did not fix it, and did not return the blood back to do another Halachah.